We are interested in funding long-term, large-scale data collection efforts. One of the most valuable research tools in social science is the collection of cross-sectional data over time, whether on educational outcomes, political attitudes and affiliations, health access, and outcomes. We are interested in funding research projects that intend to collect data over twenty years. The projects require significant funding to ensure follow-up data collection.
2. Replication funding and publication
Epistemic Institutions
The replication crisis is a foundational problem in (social) science. We are interested in funding publications, registries, and other funds focused on ensuring that trials and experiments are replicable by other scientists.
3. Market shaping and advanced market commitments
Epistemic institutions; Economic Growth
Market shaping is when an idea can only be jump-started by committed demand or other forces. Operation Warp Speed is the most recent example of market-shaping through advanced market commitments, but it has been used several times for other vaccine development. We are interested in funding work to understand when market-shaping makes sense, ideas for creating and funding market-shaping methods, and specific market-shaping or advanced market commitments in our areas of interest.
4. Development of cross-disciplinary talent
Economic Growth, Values and Reflective Processes, Empowering Exceptional People,
The NIH successfully funded the creation of interdisciplinary graduate programs in, for example, computational biology and Ph.D./MD programs. Increasingly, the returns to studying in one discipline, artificially constructed, cannot solve our most pressing problems. We are interested in funding the development of fluent individuals in two or more fields — particularly people with expertise in technology and social or economic issues. Universities have computer science + math or computer science + biology degrees, but we are interested in cultivating talents at the intersection of any disciplines that can affect our long-term future, and with a particular emphasis on non-university contexts.
5. Political fellowships
Values and Reflective Processes, Empowering Exceptional People
We’re like to fund ways to pull people who don’t run for political office to run for political office. It’s like a MacArthur. You get a call one day. You’ve been selected. You’d make a great public servant, even if you don’t know it. You’d get some training, like DCCC and NRCC, and when you run, you get two million spent by the super-PAC run by the best. They’ve done the analysis. They’ll provide funding. They’ve lined up endorsers. You’ve never thought about politics, but they’ve got your back. Say what you want to say, make a difference in the world: run the campaign you don’t mind losing. And if you win, make it real.
6. Cross-university research
Values and Reflective Processes, Research That Will Help Us Improve, Epistemic Institutions, Empowering Exceptional People
Since 1978, more than 30 scientists supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have won the Nobel prize in medicine. We are interested in funding other cross-institutional collections of researchers and financial support beyond the biosciences, focusing on economic growth, public policy, and general social sciences.
7. Practitioner research
All
Universities are primarily filled with professors trained in similar ways. Although universities sometimes have “professors of the practice,” these positions are often reserved for folks nearing retirement. We are interested in funding ways for practitioners to spend time conducting and publishing “research” informed by their lived real-world experiences.
8. Private-sector ARPA models
All
Many of the technological innovations of the last fifty years have their genesis in experiments run by DARPA. ARPA models are characterized by individual decision-makers taking on risky bets within defined themes, setting ambitious goals, and mobilizing top researchers and entrepreneurs to meet them. We are interested in funding work to study these funding models and to create similar models in our areas of interest.
9. Large-scale randomized controlled trials
Values and Reflective Processes; Epistemic institutions; Economic Growth
RCTs are the gold standard in social science research but are frequently too expensive for most researchers to run, particularly in the United States. We are interested in large-scale funding of RCTs that are usually impossible due to a lack of funding.
10. Development of measures of success in governments
Values and Reflective Processes; Epistemic institutions
Markets keep score easily: through money. In governments, what success looks like is often more opaque and harder to measure. We are interested in funding studies of effectiveness/success and measuring it. For example, we are interested in comparative critiques of similar government institutions (i.e., DMV vs. DMV, EPA vs. EPA) across states and local entities regarding institutional design, people, and performance.
11. Civic sector software
Economic Growth, Values and Reflective Processes
Software and software vendors are among the biggest barriers to instituting new public policies or processes. The last twenty years have seen staggering advances in technology, user interfaces, and user-centric design, but governments have been left behind, saddled with outdated, bespoke, and inefficient software solutions. Worse, change of any kind can be impractical with existing technology systems or when choosing from existing vendors. This fact prevents public servants from implementing new evidence-based practices, becoming more data-driven, or experimenting with new service models.
Recent improvements in civic technology are often at the fringes of government activity, while investments in best practices or “what works” are often impossible for any government to implement because of technology. So while over the last five years, there has been an explosion of investments and activity around “civic innovation,” the results are often mediocre. On the one hand, governments end up with little more than tech toys or apps that have no relationship to the outcomes that matter (e.g. poverty alleviation, service delivery). While on the other hand, tens of millions of dollars are invested in academic research, thought leadership, and pilot programs on improving outcomes that matter, but no government can ever practically implement them because of their software.
Done correctly software can be the wedge to radically improve governments. The process to build that technology can be inclusive: engaging users inside government, citizens that interface with programs, community stakeholders, and outside experts and academics.
We are interested in funding tools that vastly and fundamentally improve the provisioning of services by civic organizations.
12. Social sector infrastructure
Values and Reflective Processes, Empowering Exceptional People
If an entrepreneur starts or runs a for-profit company, there is a range of software and other infrastructure to help you run your business: explainer guides, AWS, Salesforce.com, etc. Similar infrastructure for not-for-profits and other NGOs exist, particularly cross-border. We are interested in finding a new generation of infrastructure that supports the creation and maintenance of the social sector. This could look like a next-generation low-cost fiscal sponsor or an accounting system focused on NFP accounting and filing 990s, anything that makes it easier to start and run institutions.
13. Studying Economics Growth Deterrents and Cost Disease
Economic growth
Economic growth has forces working against it. Cost disease is the most well-known and pernicious of these in developed economies. We are interested in funding work on understanding, preventing, and reversing cost disease and other mechanisms that are slowing economic growth.
(Inspired by Patrick Collison)
14. Accelerating Accelerators
Economic Growth
Y Combinator has had one of the largest impacts on GDP of any institution in history. We are interested in funding efforts to replicate that success across different geographies, sectors (e.g. healthcare, financial services), or corporate form (e.g. not-for-profit vs. for-profit).
Thanks so much for all of these ideas! Would you be up for submitting these as separate comments so that people can upvote them separately? We’re interested in knowing what the forum thinks of the ideas people present.
Some of this has been said in threads above, but I don’t think that upvotes are a very good way of knowing what the forum thinks. People are definitely not reading this whole thread and the first posts they see will likely get all of their attention.
On top of that, I do not expect forum karma to be a good indicator of much even in the best case. People tend to upvote what they can understand and what is interesting and useful to them. I suspect what the average EA forum user finds useful and interesting is probably only loosely related with what a large EA grantmaker should fund. For instance, in general good writing is a very good way to get upvotes, but that doesn’t correlate much with the strength of the ideas presented.
1. Longitudinal studies
Epistemic Institutions; Economic Growth
We are interested in funding long-term, large-scale data collection efforts. One of the most valuable research tools in social science is the collection of cross-sectional data over time, whether on educational outcomes, political attitudes and affiliations, health access, and outcomes. We are interested in funding research projects that intend to collect data over twenty years. The projects require significant funding to ensure follow-up data collection.
2. Replication funding and publication
Epistemic Institutions
The replication crisis is a foundational problem in (social) science. We are interested in funding publications, registries, and other funds focused on ensuring that trials and experiments are replicable by other scientists.
3. Market shaping and advanced market commitments
Epistemic institutions; Economic Growth
Market shaping is when an idea can only be jump-started by committed demand or other forces. Operation Warp Speed is the most recent example of market-shaping through advanced market commitments, but it has been used several times for other vaccine development. We are interested in funding work to understand when market-shaping makes sense, ideas for creating and funding market-shaping methods, and specific market-shaping or advanced market commitments in our areas of interest.
4. Development of cross-disciplinary talent
Economic Growth, Values and Reflective Processes, Empowering Exceptional People,
The NIH successfully funded the creation of interdisciplinary graduate programs in, for example, computational biology and Ph.D./MD programs. Increasingly, the returns to studying in one discipline, artificially constructed, cannot solve our most pressing problems. We are interested in funding the development of fluent individuals in two or more fields — particularly people with expertise in technology and social or economic issues. Universities have computer science + math or computer science + biology degrees, but we are interested in cultivating talents at the intersection of any disciplines that can affect our long-term future, and with a particular emphasis on non-university contexts.
5. Political fellowships
Values and Reflective Processes, Empowering Exceptional People
We’re like to fund ways to pull people who don’t run for political office to run for political office. It’s like a MacArthur. You get a call one day. You’ve been selected. You’d make a great public servant, even if you don’t know it. You’d get some training, like DCCC and NRCC, and when you run, you get two million spent by the super-PAC run by the best. They’ve done the analysis. They’ll provide funding. They’ve lined up endorsers. You’ve never thought about politics, but they’ve got your back. Say what you want to say, make a difference in the world: run the campaign you don’t mind losing. And if you win, make it real.
6. Cross-university research
Values and Reflective Processes, Research That Will Help Us Improve, Epistemic Institutions, Empowering Exceptional People
Since 1978, more than 30 scientists supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have won the Nobel prize in medicine. We are interested in funding other cross-institutional collections of researchers and financial support beyond the biosciences, focusing on economic growth, public policy, and general social sciences.
7. Practitioner research
All
Universities are primarily filled with professors trained in similar ways. Although universities sometimes have “professors of the practice,” these positions are often reserved for folks nearing retirement. We are interested in funding ways for practitioners to spend time conducting and publishing “research” informed by their lived real-world experiences.
8. Private-sector ARPA models
All
Many of the technological innovations of the last fifty years have their genesis in experiments run by DARPA. ARPA models are characterized by individual decision-makers taking on risky bets within defined themes, setting ambitious goals, and mobilizing top researchers and entrepreneurs to meet them. We are interested in funding work to study these funding models and to create similar models in our areas of interest.
9. Large-scale randomized controlled trials
Values and Reflective Processes; Epistemic institutions; Economic Growth
RCTs are the gold standard in social science research but are frequently too expensive for most researchers to run, particularly in the United States. We are interested in large-scale funding of RCTs that are usually impossible due to a lack of funding.
10. Development of measures of success in governments
Values and Reflective Processes; Epistemic institutions
Markets keep score easily: through money. In governments, what success looks like is often more opaque and harder to measure. We are interested in funding studies of effectiveness/success and measuring it. For example, we are interested in comparative critiques of similar government institutions (i.e., DMV vs. DMV, EPA vs. EPA) across states and local entities regarding institutional design, people, and performance.
11. Civic sector software
Economic Growth, Values and Reflective Processes
Software and software vendors are among the biggest barriers to instituting new public policies or processes. The last twenty years have seen staggering advances in technology, user interfaces, and user-centric design, but governments have been left behind, saddled with outdated, bespoke, and inefficient software solutions. Worse, change of any kind can be impractical with existing technology systems or when choosing from existing vendors. This fact prevents public servants from implementing new evidence-based practices, becoming more data-driven, or experimenting with new service models.
Recent improvements in civic technology are often at the fringes of government activity, while investments in best practices or “what works” are often impossible for any government to implement because of technology. So while over the last five years, there has been an explosion of investments and activity around “civic innovation,” the results are often mediocre. On the one hand, governments end up with little more than tech toys or apps that have no relationship to the outcomes that matter (e.g. poverty alleviation, service delivery). While on the other hand, tens of millions of dollars are invested in academic research, thought leadership, and pilot programs on improving outcomes that matter, but no government can ever practically implement them because of their software.
Done correctly software can be the wedge to radically improve governments. The process to build that technology can be inclusive: engaging users inside government, citizens that interface with programs, community stakeholders, and outside experts and academics.
We are interested in funding tools that vastly and fundamentally improve the provisioning of services by civic organizations.
12. Social sector infrastructure
Values and Reflective Processes, Empowering Exceptional People
If an entrepreneur starts or runs a for-profit company, there is a range of software and other infrastructure to help you run your business: explainer guides, AWS, Salesforce.com, etc. Similar infrastructure for not-for-profits and other NGOs exist, particularly cross-border. We are interested in finding a new generation of infrastructure that supports the creation and maintenance of the social sector. This could look like a next-generation low-cost fiscal sponsor or an accounting system focused on NFP accounting and filing 990s, anything that makes it easier to start and run institutions.
13. Studying Economics Growth Deterrents and Cost Disease
Economic growth
Economic growth has forces working against it. Cost disease is the most well-known and pernicious of these in developed economies. We are interested in funding work on understanding, preventing, and reversing cost disease and other mechanisms that are slowing economic growth.
(Inspired by Patrick Collison)
14. Accelerating Accelerators
Economic Growth
Y Combinator has had one of the largest impacts on GDP of any institution in history. We are interested in funding efforts to replicate that success across different geographies, sectors (e.g. healthcare, financial services), or corporate form (e.g. not-for-profit vs. for-profit).
Thanks so much for all of these ideas! Would you be up for submitting these as separate comments so that people can upvote them separately? We’re interested in knowing what the forum thinks of the ideas people present.
Some of this has been said in threads above, but I don’t think that upvotes are a very good way of knowing what the forum thinks. People are definitely not reading this whole thread and the first posts they see will likely get all of their attention.
On top of that, I do not expect forum karma to be a good indicator of much even in the best case. People tend to upvote what they can understand and what is interesting and useful to them. I suspect what the average EA forum user finds useful and interesting is probably only loosely related with what a large EA grantmaker should fund. For instance, in general good writing is a very good way to get upvotes, but that doesn’t correlate much with the strength of the ideas presented.
Apologies. I tried. The forum definitely thinks I’m spamming it with fourteen comments, but we’ll see how it goes.
You have to pause for about 30s between comments